The positive externalities of IFRS R&D capitalization: enhanced voluntary disclosure

Studies comparing IFRS with U.S. GAAP generally focus on differences in the attributes and consequences of the recognized financial items. We, in contrast, focus on voluntary disclosure resulting from arguably the most significant difference between IFRS and GAAP: the capitalization of development costs—the “D” of R&D—required by IFRS but prohibited by GAAP. Using a sample of Israeli high-technology and science-based firms, some using IFRS and others U.S. GAAP, we document a significant externality of IFRS development cost capitalization in the form of extensive voluntary disclosure of forward?looking information on product pipeline development and its expected consequences. We show that this disclosure is value-relevant over and above the mandated financial information, including the capitalized R&D asset. We also show that the capitalized development costs (an asset) is highly significant in relation to stock prices, and enhances the relevance of the voluntary disclosures.     

Eliminating the 20-F reconciliation from IFRS to U.S. GAAP: Short-term and long-term liquidity effects

This paper examines the effects of the SEC’s 2008 decision to no longer require foreign private issuers using IFRS and trading on U.S. exchanges to reconcile their financial statements to U.S. GAAP. Extant research has found conflicting results using short event windows, while studies using longer event windows have found limited capital market impact from eliminating the reconciliation. Motivated by the SEC’s interest in understanding how disclosure rules impact market liquidity, we examine changes in effective bid-ask spreads, the price impact of trades, and quoted depth around 20-F filing dates for a sample of foreign private issuers. We find that effective spreads increase more around 20-F filing dates for filers using IFRS than for filers using U.S. GAAP, suggesting the 20-F report is more informative for filers using IFRS. We then find, in a subsample of filers using IFRS, that the increase in effective spreads for IFRS firms around 20-F filing dates is directly related to the magnitude of differences in book values between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. In sum, our results suggest a loss of useful information after the SEC’s rule change.     

Changing from German GAAP to IFRS or US GAAP: A Survey of German Companies

Since 1993 an increasing number of listed German companies have been publishing their consolidated financial statements in accordance with either IFRS or US GAAP. In 1998 this was approved as a substitute for the consolidated German GAAP financial statements of listed companies (§292a HGB). Our study surveys the motives that led these companies to opt for international reporting systems (IFRS or US GAAP) rather than German GAAP and considers whether these objectives have been achieved. Rather surprisingly, we find that even though companies state that their overall expectations have been met to a satisfactory degree, a detailed analysis shows that several of the ex-ante objectives have not been achieved from an ex-post point of view. Additionally, we use logistic regression analysis to show that companies choosing IFRS rather than US GAAP and vice versa differ distinctly in the objectives they pursue with their choice of international GAAP.     

IFRS framework-based case study: DaimlerChrysler – Adopting IFRS accounting policies

This instructional case applies a framework-based approach to explore the concept of comparability in financial reporting and retrospective application of new accounting policies. The DaimlerChrysler (DC) case provides an opportunity for you to research key financial reporting concepts, analyze accounting policy differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, determine adjustments necessary to convert financial statements from U.S. GAAP to IFRS, and compute and discuss key ratio impacts following financial statement conversion. This case demonstrates that transitioning to IFRS is more than an accounting issue; it provides opportunities for financial restructuring (e.g., Daimler’s amendments to pension plans and its 2007 sale of Chrysler). It also illustrates the importance of professional judgment when initially adopting IFRS accounting policies. Also, despite FASB and IASB convergence efforts, you learn that most of the key differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS identified in DC’s reconciliations continue today. This case helps you to: (1) develop skills to interpret and apply the requirements on first-time adoption of IFRS to a real-world setting; (2) research key differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS and their effects on the financial statements and ratios; and (3) understand significant impacts of the transition to IFRS on businesses and financial statements. Completing the case develops your critical thinking and research/technological skills.     

IFRS and U.S. GAAP: Assessing the impact of reporting incentives on firm restatements in foreign and U.S. markets

This study examines the impact of reporting incentives on firm restatements in foreign and U.S. markets. We investigate whether financial reporting, using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) results in quality disclosures, given differences in institutional and market forces. This study examines the quality of financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS and U.S. GAAP by concentrating on firm restatements as a measure of earnings management. Our results indicate that there is no significant difference in the value of restatements due to differences in accounting standards when the rule of law is high in the international market. Furthermore, firms with better law enforcement and higher traditions of law and order, tend to have smaller restatement amounts or less earnings manipulation. This study contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the quality of financial information prepared under IFRS and its dependency on the institutional factors and market forces of a country.     

Are IFRS and U.S. GAAP converging? : Some evidence from People's Republic of China companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange

This research investigates the comparability and convergence of two sets of accounting standards from 1996 to 2002: United States’ Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The investigation involves a sample of companies from the People's Republic of China (PRC) that are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). PRC companies traded on the NYSE generally prepare IFRS financial statements and provide a limited reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, creating a unique quasi-experimental opportunity to examine differences between two sets of accounting numbers produced by two different sets of accounting standards while holding the company constant. Comparability is measured by using Gray's index of comparability, and a set of measures are introduced to capture several dimensions of convergence over time in reported net income, net assets, return on net assets, and earnings per share. The evidence shows lack of comparability, caused largely by the revaluations of property, plant and equipment permitted under IFRS, but not permitted under U.S. GAAP. There is, however, substantial evidence of convergence over time.     

Are financial professionals ready for IFRS?: An exploratory study

Despite a move towards convergence between principles-based International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and rules-based U.S. GAAP, and the likelihood that many foreign affiliates of U.S. firms use IFRS, little research has examined whether United States financial managers appropriately record and summarize transactions in accordance with IFRS. This paper investigates the ability of 176 U.S. financial managers to appropriately apply the revenue recognition standard under IFRS when given the relevant guidance. About half of the participants selected the U.S. GAAP answer, and only 40 percent identified the correct answer under IFRS. More experienced financial managers, and financial managers with relevant industry experience were more likely to appropriately apply the standard, but a substantial percentage of them still selected the GAAP choice rather than the correct choice under IFRS. This suggests that more IFRS training in the U.S. is needed prior to IFRS adoption.     

Gemini Communications: A case applying revenue recognition standards

Gemini Communications (Gemini) is a case study on revenue recognition criteria. You will take on the role of an audit manager for the public accounting firm that audits Gemini. Your client, Gemini, is a US company that recently expanded operations into China through the acquisition of Apollo Man. Gemini prepares its financial statements in accordance with US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) while Apollo Man prepares its financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS GAAP). Your assignment is to research, compare and contrast the technical criteria for revenue recognition under US GAAP, IFRS GAAP, and the proposed revenue standard. You will apply the various criteria to an Apollo Man sales transaction to determine the timing and amount of revenue Apollo Man should recognize. The case is designed to develop your research and written communication skills.     

Attribute differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS earnings: An exploratory study

In this study we explore attribute differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS earnings. Our study is motivated by the ongoing harmonization process in accounting standard setting as well as by recent convergence projects by the FASB and the IASB. We test two market-based earnings attributes, i.e., value relevance and timeliness, as well as two accounting-based earnings attributes, i.e., predictability and accrual quality. These attributes are tested for German New Market firms as they are allowed to choose between IFRS and U.S. GAAP for financial reporting purposes. Overall, we find that U.S. GAAP and IFRS only differ with regard to predictive ability. The fact that U.S. GAAP accounting information outperforms IFRS also holds after controlling for differences in firm characteristics, such as size, leverage and the audit firm. However, our results also seem to suggest that these differences are not fully valued by investors, as we do not observe significant and consistent differences for the value-relevance attribute.     

An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards

The debate over the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by United States issuers, or its convergence with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) has been going on for several years now. However, as of this writing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has still not taken a definitive position on the issue. This is in part due to issues involving the cost of adoption, independence concerns relating to the IFRS promulgation body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the debate over which type of accounting standards is superior for financial reporting: IFRS, which are said to be “principles-based,” or U.S. GAAP, which are said to be “rules-based.” In this paper we examined the views of two stakeholders in the U.S. financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms and Chief Financial Officers in the Fortune 1000. We elicited their perceptions involving ten situations where specific rules are incorporated in U.S. GAAP. We asked if the elimination of the specific rule would be likely to better achieve the “qualitative characteristics of useful financial information” as defined by the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 2010 (FASB 2010) and the similar document adopted by the IASB at the same time (IASB 2010). We found that in eight of the ten situations both groups preferred the rules-based accounting regime (the current U.S. GAAP rules) over a principles-based approach.     

International financial reporting standards and experts' perceptions of disclosure quality

From 2005, over 7,000 listed firms in the European Union and many more around the world are required to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The introduction of a uniform accounting regime is expected to ensure greater comparability and transparency of financial reporting around the world. However, recent research has questioned the quality of financial statements prepared under IFRS standards, particularly in the presence of weak enforcement mechanisms and adverse reporting incentives ( Ball et al. , 2003 ). In this paper, we assess the quality of the financial statements of Austrian, German and Swiss firms which have already adopted internationally recognized standards (IFRS or U.S. GAAP). The study makes use of available disclosure quality scores extracted from detailed analyses of annual reports by reputed accounting scholars ('experts'). This work complements other contemporary research on the quality of IFRS financial statements where the properties of earnings are used as an evaluation metric ( Barth et al. , 2005 ). Our evidence shows that disclosure quality has increased significantly under IFRS in the three European countries we analyse. This result holds not only for firms which have voluntarily adopted IFRS or U.S. GAAP, but also for firms which mandatorily adopted such standards in response to the requirements of specific stock market segments. Although we cannot establish direct causality due to the inherent self-selection issues for most of our sample firms, the evidence shows that the quality of financial reports has increased significantly with the adoption of IFRS.     

Do IFRS Reconciliations Convey Information? The Effect of Debt Contracting

We examine whether earnings reconciliation from U.K. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) convey information. As a result of debt contracting, mandatory accounting changes are expected to affect the likelihood of violating existing covenants based on rolling GAAP, leading to a redistribution of wealth between shareholders and lenders. Consistent with this prediction, we find significant market reactions to IFRS reconciliation announcements. These market reactions are more pronounced among firms that face a greater likelihood and costs of covenant violation and early announcements. While the association between later announcements and weaker market reactions is consistent with contractual implications of technical changes to earnings, which investors quickly learn to predict, it is inconsistent with IFRS forcing all firms in the sample to reveal firm-specific information through accruals. Thus, by showing that mandatory IFRS also affects debt contracting, we expand on existing IFRS research that focuses on how accounting quality and cost of capital are impacted.     

Does accounting quality change following a switch from U.S. GAAP to IFRS? Evidence from Germany

This study examines whether accounting quality changed following a switch from U.S. GAAP to IFRS. Using a sample of German high tech firms that transitioned to IFRS from U.S. GAAP in 2005, we find that accounting numbers under IFRS generally exhibit more earnings management, less timely loss recognition, and less value relevance compared to those under U.S. GAAP. In addition, after analyzing the accounting quality of firms that applied IFRS throughout the entire sample period, we find that, for the metrics suggesting a decline in accounting quality for both groups of firms, the change is significantly more pronounced for firms switching to IFRS from U.S. GAAP. Overall, our findings indicate that the application of U.S. GAAP generally resulted in higher accounting quality than application of IFRS, and a transition from U.S. GAAP to IFRS reduced accounting quality. Our findings provide the first evidence on the potential consequences of a switch from U.S. GAAP to IFRS.     

The Role and Current Status of IFRS in the Completion of National Accounting Rules – Evidence from the Netherlands

Abstract

Dutch law (B2T9) is positive towards IFRS. IFRS may be used by all entities, there is a specific option for entities using IFRS in the consolidated financial statements to apply an IFRS-friendly version of B2T9 in its separate financial statements, and IFRS for SMEs can be used by non-listed and non-regulated companies in combination with B2T9. In the process of adoption of the 2013 EU Accounting Directive only limited references have been made to IFRS. This is not an indication of a reduced interest in IFRS, but is a result of limiting the changes of B2T9 to those that are necessary as a result of changes at the EU level. The Dutch Accounting Standards Board, issuing Dutch Accounting Standards (DAS), considers IFRS when developing and changing its standards. In addition to the IFRS option DAS often include one or more additional optional treatments that are considered suitable for non-listed companies. The Dutch regulatory authority AFM is also positive towards IFRS and even advocates elimination of non-IFRS options from Dutch GAAP as much as possible. The number of major differences between Dutch GAAP and IFRS is relatively limited, with only a few differences that cannot be avoided by an entity when preparing financial statements under Dutch GAAP.     

Discussion of ‘Accounting Premium’ for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP Vis-à-vis German GAAP”

Ernstberger and Vogler [Ernstberger, J. & Vogler, O. (2008-this issue). Analyzing the German Accounting Triad with an Enhanced Multifactor Model—‘Accounting Premium’ for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP Vis-à-vis German GAAP. International Journal of Accounting.] employ the concurrent use of three distinct accounting-standard regimes (German GAAP; U.S. GAAP; and IAS/IFRS GAAP) in Germany as a foundation for evaluating the relation between accounting standard regime and equity-return attributes. They find that firms using U.S. or IAS/IFRS GAAP have higher betas but yield lower returns (cost of capital) relative to firms employing German GAAP. They also find that portfolios designed to isolate the return impacts of U.S. and IAS/IFRS GAAP relative to German GAAP are priced in a risk-factor-like fashion. In this discussion I suggest that a good bit of this empirical evidence is problematic. I also discuss the implausibility of information quality being priced in a Fama and French [Fama, E.F. & French, K.R. (1992). The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance 47 (2): 427–465.] factor-like fashion. Finally, I introduce the importance of conditioning analyses of the relation between firm-level information quality and equity-market return (cost of capital) on the degree to which the shareholder base of a firm holds diversified portfolios.     

The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic

There has been considerable discussion about the U.S. reporting standards becoming less rules based, similar to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). One proposed advantage of a change to IFRS is increased comparability across multinational and non-U.S. companies. Additionally, some believe that IFRS afford greater flexibility in its principles, thereby enabling firms’ accounting choices to better reflect the true economic nature of any given transaction (FASB, 2002; SEC, 2003). With fewer rules, both financial statement preparers and auditors would be expected to adjust to having more options with regards to financial reporting. However, some proposed changes leave the option open to implement IFRS (or other principles-based standards) in ways that still follow rules in U.S. GAAP. This paper investigates whether prior year accounting treatments influence the judgment for current year treatments when one way to implement the standard is to follow the prior year treatment. We find that some auditors fixate on prior year scenarios and judgments, even if the current year scenario and applicable accounting standards are different. We find that holding auditors accountable for their decision making process reduces the likelihood of sticking with the prior year treatment most notably when the prior year standards were U.S. GAAP.     

Measuring the impact of international reporting standards on market performance of publicly traded companies

The decision whether to require publicly traded companies to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) remains in flux. In 2008, the US Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a roadmap leading to complete acceptance of IFRS in the US. With the potential replacement of US GAAP with IFRS in the near future, understanding the impact of IFRS on corporate financial reporting is more important than ever. This study examines two factors which are critical considerations in the decision to accept or not to accept IFRS in the US: How different is financial statement information derived under IFRS from information derived under US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); and how much incremental information value, if any, is provided by IFRS over US GAAP? The present study extends prior research by examining concurrently both differences and their impact on market performance. Findings of this study support the view that differences on financial statement results between IFRS and US GAAP are not significant, thus, supporting proponents of adoption of IFRS in the US, after which all US publicly traded companies would use IFRS and not US GAAP.     

IAS Versus U.S. GAAP: Assessing the Quality of Financial Reporting in South Africa,the United Kingdom,and the United States

In this study, we investigate whether financial reporting, using International Accounting Standards (IAS) results in quality disclosures, given differences in institutional and market forces across legal jurisdictions. This study contributes to the global accounting debate by utilizing U.S.-based companies complying with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) as a benchmark for measuring the quality of IAS as applied by South Africa (S.A.) and United Kingdom (U.K.) companies. Although South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States are common law countries with strong investor protection, South Africa's institutional factors and market forces vary from that of the U.K. and the U.S. South Africa's financial market is less developed than that of the U.K. and the U.S. We compare the discretionary accruals of firms complying with U.S. GAAP to the discretionary accruals of U.K. and S.A. firms complying with IAS. This allows a comparison between companies (S.A. and U.K.) operating under different institutional factors and market forces that have adopted IAS versus U.S. companies that report under U.S. GAAP. Our sample, consisting of U.S., S.A., and U.K. listed firms, contains 3,166 firm-year observations relating to the period 1999–2001. The results of our study indicate that S.A firms utilizing IAS report absolute values of discretionary accruals that are significantly greater than absolute values of discretionary accruals of U.S. firms utilizing U.S. GAAP. In contrast, U.K. firms utilizing IAS report discretionary accruals that are significantly less than the discretionary accruals of companies in the United States reporting under U.S. GAAP. This study contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the quality of financial information prepared under IAS and its dependency on the institutional factors and market forces of a country.     

Performance Reporting under Fair Value Accounting

Abstract

This paper compares performance measurement under fair value accounting vs. U.S. GAAP accounting. As illustrated in the paper, the main difference between fair value accounting and U.S. GAAP accounting lies in the treatment of gains and losses on both assets and liabilities. Fair value accounting would report all gains and losses on both assets and liabilities in the period in which they arise. U.S. GAAP on the other hand, recognizes gains and losses over the life of the block of business (or at the time of a transaction). When net gains and losses on assets and liabilities are immaterial, the pattern of earnings under both systems can be quite similar. However, If a company is generating significant gains or losses on its net book of business (such as in the case of an asset/liability mismatch), fair value accounting will reveal this much sooner than U.S. GAAP. When the full impact of its actions (including gains and losses) is reported in the current period, management is in a better position to understand how the value of the company is changing and adjust its decisions accordingly. This is one of the main reasons for moving to a fair value system and is expected to be a major benefit if fair value accounting is ultimately adopted.     

Baylor University Roundtable on The Corporate Mission, CEO Pay, and Improving the Dialogue with Investors

A small group of academics and practitioners discusses four major controversies in the theory and practice of corporate finance:

• • What is the social purpose of the public corporation? Should corporate managements aim to maximize the profitability and value of their companies, or should they instead try to balance the interests of their shareholders against those of “stakeholder” groups, such as employees, customers, and local communities?
• • Should corporate executives consider ending the common practice of earnings guidance? Are there other ways of shifting the focus of the public dialogue between management and investors away from near-term earnings and toward longer-run corporate strategies, policies, and goals? And can companies influence the kinds of investors who buy their shares?
• • Are U.S. CEOs overpaid? What role have equity ownership and financial incentives played in the past performance of U.S. companies? And are there ways of improving the design of U.S. executive pay?
• • Can the principles of corporate governance and financial management at the core of the private equity model—notably, equity incentives, high leverage, and active participation by large investors—be used to increase the values of U.S. public companies?